DOCSLIB.ORG

Gunpowder Falls Maryland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gunpowder Falls Maryland Gunpowder Falls Maryland USES OF A WATER RESOURCE TODAY AND TOMORROW By DERIC O'BRYAN and RUSSELL L McAVOY An ana lysis of the major demands on the Gunpowder Fal I s basin : living space, water supply, and recreation GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1815 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T, Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. GS 65-370 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1966 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents (paper cover) Contents Page Introduction._____________________________________________________ 1 What the basin provides today._____________________________________ 3 Living space._________________________________________________ 3 Location________________________________________________ 3 History __________________________________________________ 5 Population___ __________________________________________ 7 Economics.._ _____________________________________________ 7 Roads__________________________________________________ 10 Water resource.__---_---____________--____________-_-_________ 10 Water, a variable commodity._____-__-_____-____---___-____ 11 Averages and probabilities__________-__-____-___-_----_____- 14 Public supply for Metropolitan Baltimore____________________ 19 Supplemental supplies for industry________________-___-______ 26 Rural dependence on wells_________________-_-__--_--_______ 28 Ground water in the Piedmont-_________________________ 29 Ground water in the Coastal Plain______________________ 29 Waste disposal--__-___---___-__--___-_-_---___-----_--_,._- 32 Water quality..___________________________________________ 34 Effects of the geology._____--_-___-_-____-____-___-__-_ 35 Effects of man's activities__________________--_-----___- 37 Effects of storm-water runoff_________________-_-_-_--_-- 42 Effects of sedimentation._______________________________ 46 Recreation.._ _________________________________________________ 51 Looking ahead____________________________________________________ 53 Urban growth and zoning__.___._____-_____-_________-_-_-_____- 53 Population forecasts__-_____---____--_____-__-_____-------_---- 54 Projects and plans.___________.___________-__________-----_-_-- 57 Water for the metropolis from the Susquehanna River _ ________ 58 The Gunpowder Falls State Park_________________-___--_-_-_ 60 Zoning and related legislation________________-____----_---_- 62 Highways, byways, and a bridge. __ ___________-__--_-----__- 63 Suburbs and metrotowns__-______-__--____-_____-_-------_- 64 Reisterstown__ _ _______________________________________ 64 Carney-Perry Hall____-___________-_-_-________-__----_ 67 Towson-Cockeys ville. ________-_________--________---__- 67 Hereford-Belfast Road.________________________________ 67 Problems, choices, and compromises.__ _ ____________________-__-__-- 67 Living space versus water supply.___________-________-------____ 68 The potential sediment problem.--_-_____---____--___------- 68 An alternate metrotown site. _______________________________ 70 Water supply versus recreation.._____-_____________-_--------i-_ 75 Draft rates and water levels._____________________--_---_-_- 75 Augmenting the flow below Loch Raven Dam ________________ 79 Additional impoundments________-_______-._____-----_-_--- 79 Increasing the Patapsco water supply.___________-____------- 81 III Problems, choices, and compromises Continued Page Recreation versus living space_____--_---____-__-________-_____ 82 Publicly owned additional impoundments.___-__-____-----_-__ 83 Possibilities on the estuary________________________________ 84 Conclusions.__-_________-_---____-__--__-_--_-_-----______-_-_---_ 84 Selected references.________________________________________________ 88 Acknowledgments ______________________---_____-_----_--_---__-___ 90 Illustrations Page FIGURE 1. The three major uses of the Gunpowder Falls btfsin___-__ 2 2. Index map---_-__---_-_------_-_---____--__--_-_-_- 4 3. Map of basin population by election districts_____----__ 8 4. Graph of land used for farming in Baltimore County and in the Gunpowder Falls basin._____________________ 9 5. Chart of precipitation record and probable rainfall expectancies __.______-----_____-_--.__-_-____--__ 11 6. Graph of precipitation variability..--____._-________._ 12 7. Chart of average daily flow of Gunpowder Falls ________ 13 8. Graph of percentage of years when Gunpowder Falls flow is less than average.__________________________ 14 9. Generalized geologic map of the basin and ground-water zones ___________________________________________ 15 10-14. Graphs showing 10. Range of low streamflows from zone !_________ 16 11. Range of low streamflows from zone 2_________ 17 12. The water-cycle budget, Gunpowder Falls basin _ _ 17 13. Calculated fluctuations in the ground-water supply in a normal year__ ________________ 18 14. Water-level changes in Hydes well for 1961, measured and calculated._---_____-_--_____ 19 15. Sketch of development of Gunpowder Falls a^ a water supply ___________-----__-_------__--------__-__- 20 16. Graph of population and water used, 1910-63._________ 21 17. Map of water-service area (1964) and planned extensions._ 22 18. Graph showing probability of decreasing Liberty Reser­ voir contents_ _ _______________-_--___--__----___ 23 19. Graph of chance of failure of Gunpowder Falls water- supply system for various draft rates______________ 24 20. Chart of average daily flow of water over Lo?h Raven Dam, 1953-62_______________-_____-_-_-______ 27 21. Map of the Coastal Plain section of the basin and the Joppatowne well field.____________________________ 30 22. Chart of generalized logs of selected wells at Jopp^towne. _ 31 23-25. Maps of 23. Present (1964) and planned sewered areas______ 33 24. Reconnaissance surveys of Loch Raven Reser­ voir ___________________------_-_-_---_-__ 39 25. Reconnaissance survey of Prettyboy Reservoir __ 41 26-28. Recorder charts of 26. Runoff from area A__________-__--_-_--_--__ 43 27. Runoff from area B__________-----_-___---__ 44 28. Storm runoff from area A.__----___---------_ 46 IV FIGURE 29-31. Graphs showing Page 29. Relationships of dissolved substances to rainfall in area A__________._____________________ 47 30. Land use in the basin, 185<K2010_____________ 48 31. Sediment yield reflecting change in land use, 1850-1963______-_. _______________________ 49 32-35. Graphs showing population forecasts for 32. Baltimore City_-_---------__-_--_-----_--_- 55 33. Baltimore County_________________________ 56 34. Metropolitan Baltimore____________________ 56 35. Gunpowder Falls basin._____________________ 57 36. Graph of water used by metropolitan Baltimore from 1900 to 1962 and projected to 2010. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ - _ _ _ 58 37. Map of present and proposed recreational areas ________ 61 38. Map of possible metrotown sites____________________ 65 39. Chart of capacity loss to sediment in small impound­ ments. ___-____________-_--_-_____--_-_____----_- 69 40. Chart of projected annual sediment yield as urbanization increases ______________--__-___________-__------_ 70 41. Sketch map of Long Green Valley, a possible alternate metrotown site._______----____-___________---_--_ 72 42-44. Graphs showing 42. Low streamflow from Long Green Valley______. 73 43. Relations between draft rates and probability that Loch Raven Reservoir contents will fall below indicated amounts,._________________ 77 44. Amounts that draft rate can be increased witt additional reservoir capacities______________ 80 45. Map showing possible route of pipeline that could be built to divert water to Patapsco River basin. _______ 82 Tables Page TABLE 1. Water budget by months for the Gunpowder Falls basin, 1884- 1960__ _-_-- __- - _---------_--------.------ 13 2. Chemical analysis of water from selected streams in zone !__-_ 35 3. Chemical analysis of water from selected streams in zone 2_ _ _ _ 36 4. Water needed for Metropolitan Baltimore_____________-___- 59 5. Suitability or readiness of metrotown sites for urbanization-. 66 Gunpowder Falls, Maryland USES OF A WATER RESOURCE TODAY AND TOMORROW By Deric O'Bryan and Russell L McAvoy Introduction The Maryland watercourse known as Gunpowder Falls is a lovely landscape and a sustaining and relaxing environment a natural commodity for man to use and enjoy. The stream is not large, but as a water supply it is one of the most important in Maryland. More people depend on it for water than on any other water source within the State, and more money has been spent over a longer period to develop, treat, distribute, and protect its water than for any other Maryland stream. At 14 cents per thousand gallons, the water is one of the best bargains in Maryland, and a high-quality product, too, for the quality of Gunpowder Falls water is comparable with that of the best public supplies in the Nation. And it all belongs to Baltimore the Baltimore Bureau of Water Supply holds rights to all surface or runoff water in the entire Gunpowder Falls basin. Different people value Gunpowder Falls in different ways. To each of the 1.4 million water users the proportionate capital value share of the Metropolitan Baltimore water system is about $160. Each of Maryland's taxpayers is contributing about $5 towards the acquisition of a State park in the basin; development and mainte­ nance of that park will cost more on a continuing basis. Every one of the approximately 1,000 families who settle annually (the number increases
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (TMDL) for Bacteria, Mercury, Nutrients, and Sediment
    Harford County, Maryland Loch Raven Reservoir Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Bacteria, Mercury, Nutrients, and Sediment The Loch Raven Reservoir Watershed, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for bacteria (December 2009), mercury (August 2004), and nutrients and sediment (March 2007) were established by Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On December 30, 2014, MDE reissued the Phase I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to the County. The permit has several new requirements, including stringent stormwater management criteria, implementation of strategies to reduce litter and floatables, and development of restoration plans. Part IV.E.2.b of the NPDES MS4 permit requires the County to develop restoration plans to address stormwater wasteload allocations (SW-WLAs) for the waterbodies in the County that have EPA-approved TMDLs. Attachment B of the County’s NPDES MS4 permit lists eight waterbodies in the County that have TMDLs for various impairments. Table 1 lists the waterbodies, type of TMDL, and the impairment. Table 1: EPA-Approved TMDLs in Harford County Type of TMDL Watershed Impairment Local Bynum Run Sediment Swan Creek Nutrients Loch Raven Reservoir (Non-Tidal) Bacteria Loch Raven Reservoir Mercury Loch Raven Reservoir Nutrients and Sediment Chesapeake Bay Bush River Oligohaline Nutrients and Sediment Gunpowder River Olighaline Nutrients and Sediment Chesapeake Bay Mainstem 1 Tidal Fresh Nutrients and Sediment Chesapeake Bay Mainstem 2 Oligohaline Nutrients and Sediment The Loch Raven Reservoir Watershed is located in Maryland and includes a small contribution from Pennsylvania. The Maryland portion of the watershed is located almost entirely within the northern section of Baltimore County.
    [Show full text]
  • South Branch Patapsco River Watershed Characterization Plan
    South Branch Patapsco River Watershed Characterization Plan Spring 2016 Prepared by Carroll County Bureau of Resource Management South Branch Patapsco Watershed Characterization Plan Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... v List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... vi I. Characterization Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 A. Purpose of the Characterization ....................................................................................... 1 B. Location and Scale of Analysis ........................................................................................ 1 C. Report Organization ......................................................................................................... 3 II. Natural Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 5 A. Introduction .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gunpowder River
    Table of Contents 1. Polluted Runoff in Baltimore County 2. Map of Baltimore County – Percentage of Hard Surfaces 3. Baltimore County 2014 Polluted Runoff Projects 4. Fact Sheet – Baltimore County has a Problem 5. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Back River 6. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Gunpowder River 7. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Middle River 8. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Patapsco River 9. FAQs – Polluted Runoff and Fees POLLUTED RUNOFF IN BALTIMORE COUNTY Baltimore County contains the headwaters for many of the streams and tributaries feeding into the Patapsco River, one of the major rivers of the Chesapeake Bay. These tributaries include Bodkin Creek, Jones Falls, Gwynns Falls, Patapsco River Lower North Branch, Liberty Reservoir and South Branch Patapsco. Baltimore County is also home to the Gunpowder River, Middle River, and the Back River. Unfortunately, all of these streams and rivers are polluted by nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment and are considered “impaired” by the Maryland Department of the Environment, meaning the water quality is too low to support the water’s intended use. One major contributor to that pollution and impairment is polluted runoff. Polluted runoff contaminates our local rivers and streams and threatens local drinking water. Water running off of roofs, driveways, lawns and parking lots picks up trash, motor oil, grease, excess lawn fertilizers, pesticides, dog waste and other pollutants and washes them into the streams and rivers flowing through our communities. This pollution causes a multitude of problems, including toxic algae blooms, harmful bacteria, extensive dead zones, reduced dissolved oxygen, and unsightly trash clusters.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighborhood NEWS
    Neighborhood NEWS RUXTON-RIDERWOOD-LAKE ROLAND AREA IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION WINTER • 2014-15 Annual Meeting Highlights INSIDE by Jessica Paffenbarger children’s play area. And…we got a sneak peak at the concept plan for the proposed Lake Roland Education This year we had a full course of delights at our an- Center to be located near nual meeting. Our appetizer was Silent Night 1814 the Ranger Station. a 40 minute Meet-and-Greet with PAGE 3 candidates for the Maryland Senate Many were surprised to H and House of Delegates. Our main learn that our 500 acre Closeting Old course was a presentation about park is over half the size New Year’s Robert E. Lee Park – Past, Present of Central Park and boasts Resolutions and Future. And dessert was a brief two National Register of PAGE 4 business meeting including the Historic Places Districts Treasurer’s report, a written update (Lake Roland Historic H of the Association’s business for District and Bare Hills Mary Kate Tells It the year, a goodbye and thank you Historic District)! The Like It Is to retiring Board members and a land for the Park was PAGE 6 vote to elect new and second-term acquired from The Balti- H members to the Board. more Gunpowder Company Home Sales of Maryland (formerly Patrick Jarosinski, RRLRAIA Jeffrey Budnitz and Elise Butler present “Robert E PAGE 7 Lee Park – Past, Present and Future” The Bellona Gunpowder President, opened with welcom- Photo courtesy John Baer Company) in the 1850s ing comments and introduced our H by the City of Baltimore Lake Roland host, Reverend Arianne Weeks, and flooded to create a lake as a reservoir for the Education Center Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd.
    [Show full text]
  • SP#46 Non-Associators in Harford County, Maryland at The
    Non-Associators in Harford County, Maryland at the Onset of the Revolutionary War, 1775-1776 Compiled from Dr. George W. Archer’s Research and Annotated with Other Data and Family Information by Henry C. Peden, Jr., M.A. The Harford County Genealogical Society Special Publication No. 46 © 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD .....................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION by Henry C. Peden, Jr. .................................................................................2 NON-ASSOCIATORS IN HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND AT THE ONSET OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, 1775-1776 .................................................. 6-38 FORWARD SPECIAL PUBLICATION (SP) #46, Non-Associators in Harford County, Maryland at the Onset of the Revolutionary War, 1775-1776, will be particularly interesting and useful to some researchers. This publication may explain why an ancestor did not appear in some other traditional record (e.g., list of militia). Like SP#45, this publication is provided by the Society’s long-time member, Henry C. Peden, Jr., so the membership can be confident that the information presented was well researched. As Henry warns at the end of his introduction, you should not assume the people listed herein were Tories … they could have been Quaker, a doctor or a man of the cloth. The Board is particularly pleased that we are able to provide a second publication to the Society’s membership for 2013. INTRODUCTION In the latter part of the 19th century the indefatigable Dr. George Washington Archer (1824-1907) collected many records about Harford County. For the Revolutionary War era he compiled lists of Associators and Non-Associators. This manuscript includes his material about Non- Associators that I have annotated with family history information.
    [Show full text]
  • Trip Schedule NOVEMBER 2013 – FEBRUARY 2014 the Club Is Dependent Upon the Voluntary Trail Policies and Etiquette Cooperation of Those Participating in Its Activities
    Mountain Club of Maryland Trip Schedule NOVEMBER 2013 – FEBRUARY 2014 The Club is dependent upon the voluntary Trail Policies and Etiquette cooperation of those participating in its activities. Observance of the following guidelines will enhance the enjoyment The Mountain Club of Maryland (MCM) is a non-profit organization, of everyone: founded in 1934, whose primary concern is to provide its members and • Register before the deadline. Early registration for overnight or com- guests the opportunity to enjoy nature through hiking and other activi- plicated trips is especially helpful. Leaders may close registration early ties, particularly in the mountainous areas accessible to Baltimore. when necessary to limit the size of the trip. The leader may also refuse We publish a hike and activities schedule, with varieties in location registration to persons who may not be sufficiently strong to stay with and difficulty. We welcome guests to participate in most of our activi- the group. ties. We include some specialized hikes, such as family or nature hikes. • Trips are seldom canceled, even for inclement weather. Check with We help each other, but ultimately everyone is responsible for their the leader when conditions are questionable. If you must cancel, call individual safety and welfare on MCM trips. the leader before he or she leaves for the starting point. Members and We generally charge a guest fee of $2 for non-members. This fee is guests who cancel after trip arrangements have been made are billed waived for members of other Appalachian Trail maintaining clubs. Club for any food or other expenses incurred. members, through their dues, pay the expenses associated with publish- • Arrive early.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FISCHER FAMILY of BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND: a PICTURE of the LIFE of a GERMAN-AMERICAN FAMILY in the EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY in 1990, Rudolph F
    THE FISCHER FAMILY OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND: A PICTURE OF THE LIFE OF A GERMAN-AMERICAN FAMILY IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY In 1990, Rudolph F. Fischer, Sr. finished writing his recollections from child- hood. Although Mr. Fischer intended his narrative solely for his family, the story he tells will likely appeal to many. He focuses on his own experiences yet recounts a virtual chronicle of life in rural Baltimore County in the early twentieth century. Mr. Fischer is now deceased, but his son, Rudolph, Jr., has graciously con- sented to the publication of his father's narrative in the Report. The story is presented largely as Mr. Fischer wrote it. Some explicit references to fami- ly members have been omitted, and several notes and illustrations have been added to make the whole accessible to a wider audience, particularly those who might not be intimately familiar with the geography of Baltimore City and County (Ed.). In June, 1896, my grandfather, Friedrich stated: "having declared an oath taken in J. Fischer, purchased four acres, one open court his intentions to become a citizen rood and eight perches1 of land on the of the United States and that he doth north side of Bird River Neck Road from absolutely renounce all allegiance and James J. Milling, He paid $40.00 per acre fidelity to the Emperor of Germany of or a total price of $172.00. whom he was heretofore a subject." Grandfather Fischer had recently In 1905 my father returned to his na- arrived in America from Germany, where he tive village of Widerau in Saxony to bring was born in 1842.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Greenspring Valley
    Historic Greenspring Valley Begin Tour at 10501 Falls Road, Lutherville, MD 21093. 1. The Valley Inn c.1832, formerly Brooklandville House (10501 Falls Road) Originally built as a tavern known as Brooklandville House, this property was owned by John R. Gwynn. The two-story stone building was also used as a post office, stagecoach stop, tea room, sales-display room and sports center. It has changed owners many times over the years, but has always been a place of commerce. Now owned by Ted Bauer, the Valley Inn is operating as a popular bar and restaurant. http://mht.maryland.gov/mihp/MIHPCard.aspx?MIHPNo=BA-218 Directly across the street is the next landmark. 2. Brooklandville Railroad Station c.1885 (10512 Falls Road) This high Victorian depot served the Valley Branch of the Northern Central Railroad as its Brooklandville stop. Passenger service was terminated in 1933 and the entire line was abandoned in 1959, due to the construction of the Jones Falls Expressway and the Beltway interchange. http://mht.maryland.gov/mihp/MIHPCard.aspx?MIHPNo=BA-1187 Turn left onto Falls Road. In .2 miles, turn right into The Cloisters. 3. The Cloisters c.1932 (10440 Falls Road) Sometimes called Castle Cloister, this 1932 second home of Sumner and Dudrea Parker housed their vast collections of medieval art and architectural pieces. The Parkers “transplanted” salvaged but important features from the likes of Robert Gilmor’s Glen Ellen, a replica of Sir Walter Scott’s Scottish home, Abbotsford, built in 1833 near Loch Raven Reservoir. http://mht.maryland.gov/mihp/MIHPCard.aspx?MIHPNo=BA-1186 Proceed left on Falls Road.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Quick Reference
    2021 2021 12, Quick Reference August 1. Maintain and improve environmental quality and encourage economic prosperity while preserving the county’s rural character. 2. Promote land use, planning, and development concepts and practices that support citizens’ health, safety, well-being, individual rights and the economic viability of Carroll County. 3. Maintain safe and adequate drinking water and other water supplies including efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. 4. Strive to protect our natural resources for future generations. Solar Panel Surface Area Maximum Square Footage for Ground-Mounted Systems in Lot Size Residential Zones <= ½ acre 120 square feet >½ acre 240 square feet >1 acre to 3 acres 480 square feet Aggregate square footage of the roof, or >3 acres roofs of structures, situated on the subject property In May 2021, the Commissioners amended the County Zoning Code to allow community solar energy generating systems (CSEGSs) on remaining portions in the Agricultural Zone. The Code requires a permanent easement on the rest of the property, co-location with agricultural uses or pollinator friendly plantings, and landscaped screening. An outreach booklet provides information on the amendment. The County installed solar arrays on 3 different County properties – Carroll Community College, Hoods Mill Landfill, and Hampstead WWTP – to conserve energy and realize cost savings. These facilities came online in 2018. In 2018, Carroll County received a Silver Designation by the national Fiscal Year # of Permits SolSmart program. 2015 383 2016 606 2017 463 2018 312 2019 194 2020 157 Carroll protected 102 miles of buffered streams under easements. As of December 2020, water recharge areas were protected on 3,599 acres incorporated into 27 easements.
    [Show full text]
  • Patuxent River and Patapsco River Watershed Assessments Howard County, Maryland
    HOWARD COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION Patuxent River and Patapsco River Watershed Assessments Howard County, Maryland Thorough watershed assessment helps Howard County, Maryland chart the course toward county-wide water quality improvement. conducted stream assessments For the second phase of of the County’s two water- each watershed assessment, sheds: the Southern Middle Biohabitats developed con- Patuxent, and the Patapsco cepts for the highest priority River South Branch. The goal proposed retrofit and res- of the assessments was to toration opportunities. The identify and prioritize oppor- concepts, which included tunities to improve water qual- approaches such as channel ity through stream restoration, stabilization, Regenerative outfall stabilization, new Stormwater Conveyance stormwater Best Management (RSC), bioretention facili- Practices (BMP), tree planting, ties, and tree plantings, were and BMP conversion projects. designed to provide eco- The assessments integrated ele- logical habitat and stormwater from top: Watershed assessment of Howard County’s ments of the Stream Corridor filtration while also helping natural resources; Severly eroded initial conditions Assessment (SCA), Rapid the County estimate imple- Bioassessment Protocol (RBP), mentation costs and meet oward County’s Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Bank Assessment for Non- Total Maximum Daily Load H Water Management requirement. To tackle the point source Consequences (TMDL) targets established Division set an ambitious daunting task that encom- of Sediment (BANCS), and for phosphorus and sediment goal of performing compre- passed a 253-square-mile Retrofit Reconnaissance in the local watersheds. hensive assessments of the study area, Howard County Inventory (RRI) with other County’s watersheds over a turned to their team of on- qualitative site data on the SERVICES two-year period to satisfy their call consultants.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland
    Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County- Wide Assessment Patuxtent River April, 2005 Final Report UT to Patuxtent River Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County-wide Assessment Prepared for: Howard County, Maryland Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Division 6751 Columbia Gateway Dr., Ste. 514 Columbia, MD 21046-3143 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 400 Red Brook Blvd., Ste. 200 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Acknowledgement The principal authors of this report are Kristen L. Pavlik and James B. Stribling, both of Tetra Tech. They were also assisted by Erik W. Leppo. This document reports results from three of the six subwatersheds sampled during the Spring Index Period of the third year of biomonitoring by the Howard County Stormwater Management Division. Fieldwork was conducted by Tetra Tech staff including Kristen Pavlik, Colin Hill, David Bressler, Jennifer Pitt, and Amanda Richardson. All laboratory sample processing was conducted by Carolina Gallardo, Shabaan Fundi, Curt Kleinsorg, Chad Bogues, Joey Rizzo, Elizabeth Yarborough, Jessica Garrish, Chris Hines, and Sara Waddell. Taxonomic identification was completed by Dr. R. Deedee Kathman and Todd Askegaard; Aquatic Resources Center (ARC). Hunt Loftin, Linda Shook, and Brenda Decker (Tetra Tech) assisted with budget tracking and clerical support. This work was completed under the Howard County Purchase Order L 5305 to Tetra Tech, Inc. The enthusiasm and interest of the staff in the Stormwater Management Division, including Howard Saltzman and Angela Morales is acknowledged and appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney General's 2013 Chesapeake Bay
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER ONE: LIBERTY AND PRETTYBOY RESERVOIRS ......................................................... 5 I. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 5 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ........................................................................... 8 III. The Liberty Reservoir and Prettyboy Reservoir Audit, May 29, 2013: What the Attorney General Learned .............................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER TWO: THE WICOMICO RIVER ........................................................................................ 14 I. Background .................................................................................................................................... 14 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ..................................................................................... 16 III. The Wicomico River Audit, July 15, 2013: What the Attorney General Learned ......................... 18 CHAPTER THREE: ANTIETAM CREEK ............................................................................................ 22 I. Background .................................................................................................................................... 22 II. Active
    [Show full text]